Re: [gentoo-dev] ekeyword and ordering

[foser <foser@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2334 bytes --]

On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 11:50 -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> Whoever said we were voting?  I was just showing my support for
> alphabetical keyword ordering.  Remember, alphabetical keywording is
> *already* implemented in ekeyword, and we are discussing whether or not
> to revert it. 

As the threadstarter indicated, this was done without discussing it and
in the knowledge that there was no agreement on this issue. As said
before, the fact that something gets done some way, doesn't mean it's
right to do it that way.

>  foser--

In the response to that particular expression -especially by the 'guys'
implied- you can see at least you try to defend your position now,
that's more discussion like.

> If everyone starts using ekeyword now with the alphabetical ordering
> built in, everything will be consistent, and there shouldn't be a problem.

See earlier replies : unneeded arbitrarily introduced inconsistency. I
don't know why people are defending that move, even vapier indicates
that there really is no reason to do it alphabetically, except maybe
that he now knows to look in the keywords string, which is of course a
bit far fetched with all arch keywords not being set for all different
packs (so he still has to look at different points in different packs)
and was not brought up as a defence of his particular move at the time
he started doing this.

> I guess by "creating more traffic" you mean the one time when updating
> the ebuilds with the new ordering during rsync for each user.  Even if
> this is significant over the whole tree, once everything is updated with
> keyword ordering and everyone has done an emerge sync, there won't be
> any more trouble, and we can just stay happy with the consistent
> alphabetical ordering enforced by ekeyword.

Oh no doubt, I'm concerned about the inconsistency mostly. The
maintainers arch is a concept that I do not necessarily associate with
the keywords ordering anymore (although it may have been a reasonable
indicator in the past), it actually really makes this discussion fuzzier
than it has to be. My point is more about how this got 'introduced' as a
mindset and that such unguided behaviour gets reinforced by this
discussion, now up to IUSE ordering changes and next we'll tackle
inheritance order.

- foser

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]